- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 1994 Budapest Memorandum Ukraine gives up it's Nukes in exchange for security assurances.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:10 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:10 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
In 1999* the Poles Czechs Hungarians and Romanians asked to be members and were admitted.
Yes and no, official admitted but negotiated it in 1997
quote:
The next big moment in Poland’s journey to NATO occurred in Detroit, Michigan in the United States in October 1996, where President Clinton gave a specific date for NATO enlargement for the first time: by NATO’s 50th anniversary on 4 April 1999. A few months later, Allied Foreign Ministers agreed to invite “one or more of the countries which have expressed interest in joining the Alliance” to begin accession negotiations at NATO’s next summit in July 1997 in Madrid, Spain.
And I trained some of their troops in 1996 along with Latvians
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 2:11 pm
0
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:13 pm to BluegrassCardinal
quote:
Here’s another great question. Why did NATO and DC renege on a promise not to expand into Eastern Europe.
Because the former Soviet satellites begged to join NATO because they loathed and feared Russia.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:17 pm to oldhickory1812
quote:
Those nukes were soviet, NOT Ukrainian, they were given back to their owners.
Many of the nukes were dismantled in Ukraine with the help of American engineers. Others were transferred to Russia.
An old friend who was an amazing video engineer knew a couple our engineers who worked on that. One was down on the first floor and was signaling "A-Okay" up to a Ukrainian engineer up on a catwalk. The Ukrainian was getting seriously pissed. Seems they don't have an American A-Okay sign and the nearest thing to it was a signal for a-hole.
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:23 pm to oldhickory1812
quote:giving them “back” to their “owners” would’ve been rather difficult, given that the Soviet Union no longer existed.
Those nukes were soviet, NOT Ukrainian, they were given back to their owners.
you are the third or fourth person in this thread who just seems to assume that Russia was naturally entitled to the military assets of the former Soviet Union. Why?
Ukraine represented more than 20% of both the population and industrial production of the former Soviet Union. Ukraine was entitled to its share, yet surrendered it on the assurance that we would keep the Russians in check. Oops.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:26 pm to TigerPlate
quote:
its arsenal
No
They never had operational control over the weapons. The didn’t have the codes to arm and use them.
They tried to break the encryption on the PALs but failed. When they realized they couldn’t crack them, they agreed to sell them to us for 423 million USD, and we had the Russians recycle the warheads for us.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we were worried about securing the former Soviet arsenal, and the risk of someone creating a dirty bomb.
*number pulled from memory
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:34 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:As usual, it had a hole and Billy put his dick in it
So Bill Clinton is the president who actually screwed Ukraine.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:37 pm to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
Another way of looking at it is this:
Ukraine wasn’t giving up “it’s nukes”
It was returning Russia nukes.
Exactly. This is the equivalent of saying South Dakota was a nuclear power because NORAD maintained missile silos across the midwest. Moscow, not the Ukraine, controlled the codes for those weapons.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:40 pm to TigerPlate
Until you realize we broke the agreements first by expending NATO to their borders in direct contradiction to our promised agreements
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:44 pm to TigerPlate
We also told Russia we wouldn’t expand NATO further into eastern Europe and we took a piss all over that promise
Posted on 3/2/25 at 2:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
. Why?
For the simple reason that Moscow still possessed the overwhelming preponderance of nuclear weaponry in Eastern Europe and Asia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Thus Moscow — not Kiev — held the cards in the negotiated transfer of those nuclear weapons back to Russia after the collapse of the Communist regime
Posted on 3/2/25 at 3:48 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
NATO does not expand or push. It accepts applications.
Accepting applications and then agreeing to them is expansion. If I receive an application and hire that person, I am expanding my workforce. If I agree to let someone new into my group, then I am expanding the group.
You act like NATO doesn't have the authority to reject applications. NATO agreed to expand their membership by accepting applications and taking in new members. This is expanding towards Russia. NATO was not forced to let them in.
When the CIA and USAID run propaganda campaigns and overthrow governments to get their NATO-friendly stooges elected, that is not just "accepting applications," either. That is pushing.
It's naive to believe that NATO didn't intentionally target countries in Eastern Europe, and the idea that NATO didn't expand because they just "accepted applications" is absurd.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 4:00 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
When the CIA and USAID run propaganda campaigns and overthrow governments to get their NATO-friendly stooges elected, that is not just "accepting applications," either. That is pushing.
And yet, none of the nations what you imply joined because they were coerced by the US intelligence apparatus has left NATO---something they could do.
I wonder why that is. Those nations have been in the alliance for decades now. Why does each successive government in those places not throw off the yolk of US influence if they feel it was in their national interest?
Posted on 3/2/25 at 4:03 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
They never had operational control over the weapons. The didn’t have the codes to arm and use them.
They tried to break the encryption on the PALs but failed. When they realized they couldn’t crack them, they agreed to sell them to us for 423 million USD, and we had the Russians recycle the warheads for us.
Had they not agreed, they would have been (rightfully) attacked.
Their options were to turn into a North Korea like rogue state without any backers, or sign the deal which gave them not much.
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 3/2/25 at 4:04 pm to TigerPlate
quote:
1994 Budapest Memorandum Ukraine gives up it's Nukes in exchange for security assurances.
Ukraine became the third-largest nuclear power after the Soviet Union's dissolution but voluntarily gave up its arsenal under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances. So in a way I do understand Ukraine's plight, in that US, Brits, and Russia have not lived up to their security assurances.
Can you document what these "Assurances" were?
Posted on 3/2/25 at 4:05 pm to Rebel
quote:
Lost their nukes under Clinton
Lost Crimea under Obama
Lost the Donbas under Biden
I see a pattern.
Became part of the resurgence of the Russian empire under Trump
Streak broken!
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 3/2/25 at 4:19 pm to TigerPlate
Should have never ever given them up.
And don't think every non-nuke nation who wants nukes didn't notice.
And don't think every non-nuke nation who wants nukes didn't notice.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 4:21 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Should have never ever given them up.
And don't think every non-nuke nation who wants nukes didn't notice.
Didn't matter, they couldn't use them and Russia, Poland, and the US would have been across their border in 25 minutes.
They had to give them up.
Imagine them with Nukes?
Chaos blackmail.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 4:24 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:quote:Accepting applications and then agreeing to them is expansion.
NATO does not expand or push. It accepts applications.
How telling that such sophistry used to defend NATO’s continued expansion into Eastern Europe.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 4:24 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Why does each successive government in those places not throw off the yolk of US influence if they feel it was in their national interest?
No, the more relevant question is why U.S. taxpayers are expected to indefinitely subsidize the security of these sovereign states?
Posted on 3/2/25 at 4:54 pm to Camp Randall
quote:
the resurgence of the Russian empire
This is Deep State fan fiction. The fall of Russia’s client state in Syria is a testament to that.
Russia could not muster the required resources to quell the rebel insurgency against the Assad Regime while continuing it’s occupation of the Donbas region. Russia has neither the economic might nor a sustainable birth rate ratio for any revanchist aims to restore the Soviet Empire.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News